Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Violation Technology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Violation Technology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's likely because it was translated from a Chinese language, but I cannot make much of what this is - but it is not a candidate for CSD:G1 because it is not patent nonsense. It appears to be a technology, maybe under development, which bears issues with WP:CRYSTAL if this is the case. It appears to be more of a concept of technology, and from what I can tell somebody is developing it. But this said, it almost feels like a bit of an advert, doubly so owing to an inclusion of key words in the text. I'm not entirely sure, however I'm pretty certain it does not belong here quite yet if at all. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly nothing keepable, certainly nothing suggesting improvements. SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a student essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect or Merge An essay like written above. A search for the term provided nothing but this. It seems what they refer to as "illegal activity" is using the device in the wrong manner. In the west we commonly call design like this "idiot/dumb proof". Using that term I found idiot proof on Wikipedia, which lead me to the more correct Defensive design, where the redirect should probably direct. That article doesn't happen to cite any sources either so even a merge could be merited. There possibly exists another, larger and more proper article for the same principle so if such an article exist I vote redirecting there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is incomprehensible because it is a machine translation. The same author has also created 抗违章 which is on the same topic. I've tagged that page for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. To be specific, the author has copied the first paragraph of two pages from Baidu Baike.

I suspect that the article subject to this AFD is a Google machine translation of the full version of the same two pages Baidu Baike pages. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio of [1]. Slightly different translation, but I'm pretty sure they are the same article. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 09:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.